Tesco Stores Ltd

Case Summary

Mr Vetesi claimed ordinary unfair dismissal, detriment for protected disclosure, race discrimination, breach of Working Time Regulations, and unlawful deduction of wages following his dismissal from Tesco. The tribunal dismissed all claims: the unfair dismissal claim failed due to lack of two years' continuous service (break in service between April and June 2024); the protected disclosure claim failed as disclosures were not made in the public interest; the race discrimination claim failed as there was no evidence the treatment was because of race; and the Working Time and wages claims failed due to lack of specific evidence.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claimant did not have two years' continuous service, having broken continuity when he resigned on 30 April 2024 to move to Dubai and returned on 16 June 2024 as a new employee with a new employee number. The protected disclosure claim failed because the disclosures regarding breaks and alcohol licensing practices were not made in the public interest but were personal grievances. The race discrimination claim failed as there was no evidence that the treatment was because of race, and the Working Time and unlawful deduction claims failed due to insufficient specificity and evidence from the claimant.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claimant had two years' continuous service for ordinary unfair dismissal claim
• •Whether claimant made protected disclosures and suffered detriment
• •Whether claimant was subjected to direct race discrimination in disciplinary process and dismissal
• •Whether respondent breached Working Time Regulations 1998 regarding rest breaks
• •Whether there was unlawful deduction of wages for unpaid breaks

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001593/2025 Held in Glasgow on 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 January and 12, 13 March 2026 Employment Judge E Mannion Mr A VetesiClaimant In person Tesco Stores LimitedRespondent Represented by Mr G Dunlop Counsel JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The claimant does not have the requisite two years’ service for a claim of ordinary unfair dismissal under Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and so his claim is dismissed. 2. The claimant’s claim of detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure under Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is unsuccessful and so dismissed. 3. The claimant’s claim of direct race discrimination under Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 is unsuccessful and so dismissed. 4. The claimant’s claim of an unlawful deduction of wages under Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is unsuccessful and so dismissed. 5. The claimant’s claim of a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of rest breaks is unsuccessful and so dismissed. REASONS 8001593/2025Page2 Introduction 1. This is a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal, detriment on the grounds of making a protected disclosure, race discrimination, breach of the Working Time Regulations 1997 in respect of rest breaks, and unlawful deduction of wages. All claims are denied by the respondent. 2. A bundle of documents were agreed between the parties. Some additional documentation was presented on the first morning of the hearing by the claimant who sought to add these to the bundle. There was no objection to this and these documents were duly added and paginated. Mr Dunlop also sought to update the disciplinary procedure that formed part of the bundle as the version in the bundle post-dated the dismissal. There was no objection to this either. 3. At the outset of the h…